11/16/2016

G.R.No.147978

TodayisWednesday,November16,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION
G.R.No.147978January23,2002
THELMAA.JADERMANALO,petitioner,
vs.
NORMAFERNANDEZC.CAMAISAandEDILBERTOCAMAISA,respondents.
KAPUNAN,J.:
Theissueraisedinthiscaseiswhetherornotthehusbandmayvalidlydisposeofaconjugalpropertywithoutthe
wife'swrittenconsent.
The present controversy had its beginning when petitioner Thelma A. JaderManalo allegedly came across an
advertisementplacedbyrespondents,theSpousesNormaFernandezC.CamaisaandEdilbertoCamaisa,inthe
ClassifiedAdsSectionofthenewspaperBULLETINTODAYinitsApril,1992issue,forthesaleoftheirtendoor
apartmentinMakati,aswellasthatinTaytay,Rizal.
As narrated by petitioner in her complaint filed with the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Metro Manila, she was
interested in buying the two properties so she negotiated for the purchase through a real estate broker, Mr.
ProcesoEreno,authorizedbyrespondentspouses.1Petitionermadeavisualinspectionofthesaidlotswiththe
real estate broker and was shown the tax declarations, real property tax payment receipts, location plans, and
vicinity maps relating to the properties.2 Thereafter, petitioner met with the vendors who turned out to be
respondent spouses. She made a definite offer to buy the properties to respondent Edilberto Camaisa with the
knowledge and conformity of his wife, respondent Norma Camaisa in the presence of the real estate broker.3
Aftersomebargaining,petitionerandEdilbertoagreeduponthepurchasepriceofP1,500,000.00fortheTaytay
property and P2,100,000.00 for the Makati property4 to be paid on installment basis with downpayments of
P100,000.00andP200,000.00,respectively,onApril15,1992.Thebalancethereofwastobepaidasfollows5:

TaytayProperty

MakatiProperty

P200,000.00

P300,000.00

12thmonth

700,000.00

1,600,000.00

18thmonth

500,000.00

6thmonth

ThisagreementwashandwrittenbypetitionerandsignedbyEdilberto.6Whenpetitionerpointedouttheconjugal
nature of the properties, Edilberto assured her of his wife's conformity and consent to the sale.7 The formal
typewrittenContractstoSellwerethereafterpreparedbypetitioner.Thefollowingday,petitioner,therealestate
broker and Edilberto met in the latter's office for the formal signing of the typewritten Contracts to Sell.8 After
Edilbertosignedthecontracts,petitionerdeliveredtohimtwochecks,namely,UCPBCheckNo.62807datedApril
15,1992forP200,000.00andUCPBCheckNo.62808alsodatedApril15,1992forP100,000.00inthepresence
of the real estate broker and an employee in Edilberto's office.9 The contracts were given to Edilberto for the
formalaffixingofhiswife'ssignature.
The following day, petitioner received a call from respondent Norma, requesting a meeting to clarify some
provisions of the contracts.10 To accommodate her queries, petitioner, accompanied by her lawyer, met with
Edilberto and Norma and the real estate broker at Cafe Rizal in Makati.11 During the meeting, handwritten
notationsweremadeonthecontractstosell,sotheyarrangedtoincorporatethenotationsandtomeetagainfor
theformalsigningofthecontracts.12
WhenpetitionermetagainwithrespondentspousesandtherealestatebrokeratEdilberto'sofficefortheformal
affixingofNorma'ssignature,shewassurprisedwhenrespondentspousesinformedherthattheywerebacking
out of the agreement because they needed "spot cash" for the full amount of the consideration.13 Petitioner
remindedrespondentspousesthatthecontractstosellhadalreadybeendulyperfectedandNorma'srefusalto
signthesamewouldundulyprejudicepetitioner.Still,Normarefusedtosignthecontractspromptingpetitionerto
file a complaint for specific performance and damages against respondent spouses before the Regional Trial
CourtofMakati,Branch136onApril29,1992,tocompelrespondentNormaCamaisatosignthecontractstosell.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_147978_2002.html

1/4

11/16/2016

G.R.No.147978

AMotiontoDismiss14 was filed by respondents which was denied by the trial court in its Resolution of July 21,
1992.15
RespondentsthenfiledtheirAnswerwithCompulsoryCounterclaim,allegingthatitwasanagreementbetween
hereinpetitionerandrespondentEdilbertoCamaisathatthesaleofthesubjectpropertieswasstillsubjecttothe
approvalandconformityofhiswifeNormaCamaisa.16 Thereafter, when Norma refused to give her consent to
the sale, her refusal was duly communicated by Edilberto to petitioner.17 The checks issued by petitioner were
returnedtoherbyEdilbertoandsheacceptedthesamewithoutanyobjection.18Respondentfurtherclaimedthat
the acceptance of the checks returned to petitioner signified her assent to the cancellation of the sale of the
subjectproperties.19RespondentNormadeniedthatsheeverparticipatedinthenegotiationsforthesaleofthe
subjectpropertiesandthatshegaveherconsentandconformitytothesame.20
OnOctober20,1992,respondentNormaF.CamaisafiledaMotionforSummaryJudgment21assertingthatthere
isnogenuineissueastoanymaterialfactonthebasisofthepleadingsandadmissionofthepartiesconsidering
thatthewife'swrittenconsentwasnotobtainedinthecontracttosell,thesubjectconjugalpropertiesbelongingto
respondentshence,thecontractwasnullandvoid.
On April 14, 1993, the trial court rendered a summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that
underArt.124oftheFamilyCode,thecourtcannotintervenetoauthorizethetransactionintheabsenceofthe
consent of the wife since said wife who refused to give consent had not been shown to be incapacitated. The
dispositiveportionofthetrialcourt'sdecisionreads:
WHEREFORE,consideringthesepremises,judgmentisherebyrendered:
1.DismissingthecomplaintandorderingthecancellationoftheNoticeofLisPendensbyreasonofitsfiling
onTCTNos.(464860)S8724and(464861)S8725oftheRegistryofDeedsatMakatiandonTCTNos.
295976and295971oftheRegistryofRizal.
2. Ordering plaintiff Thelma A. Jader to pay defendant spouses Norma and Edilberto Camaisa, FIFTY
THOUSAND(P50,000.00)asMoralDamagesandFIFTYTHOUSAND(P50,000.00)asAttorney'sFees.
Costsagainstplaintiff.22
Petitioner,thus,elevatedthecasetotheCourtofAppeals.OnNovember29,2000,theCourtofAppealsaffirmed
the dismissal by the trial court but deleted the award of P50,000.00 as damages and P50,000.00 as attorney's
fees.
TheCourtofAppealsexplainedthatthepropertiessubjectofthecontractswereconjugalpropertiesandassuch,
the consent of both spouses is necessary to give effect to the sale. Since private respondent Norma Camaisa
refused to sign the contracts, the sale was never perfected. In fact, the downpayment was returned by
respondentspousesandwasacceptedbypetitioner.TheCourtofAppealsalsostressedthattheauthorityofthe
courttoallowsaleorencumbranceofaconjugalpropertywithouttheconsentoftheotherspouseisapplicable
onlyincaseswherethesaidspouseisincapacitatedorotherwiseunabletoparticipateintheadministrationofthe
conjugalproperty.
Hence,thepresentrecourseassigningthefollowingerrors:
THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSGRIEVIOUSLYERREDINRENDERINGSUMMARYJUDGMENT
INDISMISSINGTHECOMPLAINTENTIRELYANDORDERINGTHECANCELLATIONOFNOTICEOFLIS
PENDENSONTHETITLESOFTHESUBJECTREALPROPERTIES
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVIOUSLY ERRED IN FAILING TO CONSIDER THAT THE
SALEOFREALPROPERTIESBYRESPONDENTSTOPETITIONERHAVEALREADYBEENPERFECTED,
FOR AFTER THE LATTER PAID P300,000.00 DOWNPAYMENT, RESPONDENT MRS. CAMAISA NEVER
OBJECTEDTOSTIPULATIONSWITHRESPECTTOPRICE,OBJECTANDTERMSOFPAYMENTINTHE
CONTRACT TO SELL ALREADY SIGNED BY THE PETITIONER, RESPONDENT MR. CAMAISA AND
WITNESSES MARKED AS ANNEX "G" IN THE COMPLAINT EXCEPT, FOR MINOR PROVISIONS
ALREADY IMPLIED BY LAW, LIKE EJECTMENT OF TENANTS, SUBDIVISION OF TITLE AND
RESCISSION IN CASE OF NONPAYMENT, WHICH PETITIONER READILY AGREED AND ACCEDED TO
THEIRINCLUSION
THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSGRIEVIOUSLYERREDWHENITFAILEDTOCONSIDERTHAT
CONTRACT OF SALE IS CONSENSUAL AND IT IS PERFECTED BY THE MERE CONSENT OF THE
PARTIESANDTHEAPPLICABLEPROVISIONSAREARTICLES1157,1356,1357,1358,1403,1405AND
1475OFTHECIVILCODEOFTHEPHILIPPINESANDGOVERNEDBYTHESTATUTEOFFRAUD.23
TheCourtdoesnotfinderrorinthedecisionsofboththetrialcourtandtheCourtofAppeals.
Petitionerallegesthatthetrialcourterredwhenitenteredasummaryjudgmentinfavorofrespondentspouses
therebeingagenuineissueoffact.Petitionermaintainsthattheissueofwhetherthecontractstosellbetween
petitionerandrespondentspouseswasperfectedisaquestionoffactnecessitatingatrialonthemerits.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_147978_2002.html

2/4

11/16/2016

G.R.No.147978

The Court does not agree. A summary judgment is one granted by the court upon motion by a party for an
expeditioussettlementofacase,thereappearingfromthepleadings,depositions,admissionsandaffidavitsthat
there are no important questions or issues of fact involved, and that therefore the moving party is entitled to
judgmentasamatteroflaw.24Aperusalofthepleadingssubmittedbybothpartiesshowthatthereisnogenuine
controversyastothefactsinvolvedtherein.
Both parties admit that there were negotiations for the sale of four parcels of land between petitioner and
respondentspousesthatpetitionerandrespondentEdilbertoCamaisacametoanagreementastothepriceand
the terms of payment, and a downpayment was paid by petitioner to the latter and that respondent Norma
refusedtosignthecontractstosell.Theissuethusposedforresolutioninthetrialcourtwaswhetherornotthe
contractstosellbetweenpetitionerandrespondentspouseswerealreadyperfectedsuchthatthelattercouldno
longerbackoutoftheagreement.
Thelawrequiresthatthedispositionofaconjugalpropertybythehusbandasadministratorinappropriatecases
requiresthewrittenconsent of the wife, otherwise, the disposition is void. Thus, Article 124 of the Family Code
provides:
Art. 124. The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal partnership property shall belong to both
spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the husband's decision shall prevail, subject to recourse to the
court by the wife for a proper remedy, which must be availed of within five years from the date of the
contractimplementingsuchdecision.
Intheeventthatonespouseisincapacitatedorotherwiseunabletoparticipateintheadministrationofthe
conjugal properties, the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. These powers do not
includethepowersofdispositionorencumbrancewhichmusthavetheauthorityofthecourtorthewritten
consentoftheotherspouse.Intheabsenceofsuchauthorityorconsentthedispositionorencumbrance
shall be void. However, the transaction shall be construed as a continuing offer on the part of the
consentingspouseandthethirdperson,andmaybeperfectedasabindingcontractupontheacceptance
bytheotherspouseorauthorizationbythecourtbeforetheofferiswithdrawnbyeitherorbothofferors.
(Underscoringours.)
Thepropertiessubjectofthecontractsinthiscasewereconjugalhence,forthecontractstoselltobeeffective,
theconsentofbothhusbandandwifemustconcur.
Respondent Norma Camaisa admittedly did not give her written consent to the sale. Even granting that
respondentNormaactivelyparticipatedinnegotiatingforthesaleofthesubjectproperties,whichshedenied,her
written consent to the sale is required by law for its validity. Significantly, petitioner herself admits that Norma
refusedtosignthecontractstosell.RespondentNormamayhavebeenawareofthenegotiationsforthesaleof
theirconjugalproperties.However,beingmerelyawareofatransactionisnotconsent.25
Finally,petitionerarguesthatsincerespondentNormaunjustlyrefusestoaffixhersignaturestothecontractsto
sell,courtauthorizationunderArticle124oftheFamilyCodeiswarranted.
Theargumentisbereftofmerit.Petitioneriscorrectinsofarassheallegesthatifthewrittenconsentoftheother
spousecannotbeobtainedorisbeingwithheld,themattermaybebroughttocourtwhichwillgivesuchauthority
ifthesameiswarrantedbythecircumstances.However,itshouldbestressedthatcourtauthorizationunderArt.
124isonlyresortedtoincaseswherethespousewhodoesnotgiveconsentisincapacitated.26
Inthiscase,petitionerfailedtoallegeandprovethatrespondentNormawasincapacitatedtogiveherconsentto
thecontracts.Intheabsenceofsuchshowingofthewife'sincapacity,courtauthorizationcannotbesought.
Undertheforegoingfacts,themotionforsummaryjudgmentwasproperconsideringthattherewasnogenuine
issue as to any material fact. The only issue to be resolved by the trial court was whether the contract to sell
involvingconjugalpropertieswasvalidwithoutthewrittenconsentofthewife.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisherebyDENIEDandthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsdatedNovember29,2000
inCAG.R.CVNo.43421AFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.,(Chairman),Puno,Pardo,andYnaresSantiago,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes
1ParagraphIVofComplaintRollo,p.61.
2ParagraphVofComplaintid.
3ParagraphVIofComplaintid.
4ParagraphVIIofComplaintid.,at62.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_147978_2002.html

3/4